User login
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
PONYC Archives
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
And exactly what alternatives to water are you thinking of?
The best thing people in NYC could do actually is to stop drinking water out of a bottle that has to be trucked into the city instead of using their taps, which has some of the best water in the world.
So you fill your bathtub to flush the toilet. You fill your your biggest cooking pots for drinking water... some head to the store and buy it, but they are usually not native residents. They are transplants who don't know the real drill.
Like many of you I grew up in a time where bottled water was a luxury and not something I ever drank. The first time I travelled to China, I was shocked that mt company had free bottled water stocked in the break room, like we have free coffee here. It seemed so odd to me that I kept one as a momento. I took me a while to realize it wasn't a luxury, it was a healthy neccessity.
Some solutions are in the offing, though it doesn't help the forementioned packaging waste, the leachates from plastic softeners, or the issues (In Maine at least) of sending millions of gallons from our water tables out of state as private (and largely untaxed) property.
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/business/14456505.htm
bob
I hope that you are better informed about "oil/fuels" than about water. Fluoride is the worst thing that anyone could be placing in their water.
The minerals in the water are not used by the body anyway. The only pure water available today is distilled water; filtered water is nothing but a joke stay away from ice cubes that come from ice machines with water filters.
"Some solutions are in the offing, though it doesn't help the forementioned packaging waste, the leachates from plastic softeners, or the issues (In Maine at least) of sending millions of gallons from our water tables out of state as private (and largely untaxed) property."
Bottled water is necessary in many cases and besides it provides a lot of people with jobs. At a number of schools here in the state of WA there are stores of bottled water; our big deal is earthquakes ... and plastic bottles are much, much, much better than glass; I would not refer to it as "packaing waste."
There is still some controversy about adding fluoride to water supplies, but it has been an enormous success given the state of our dietary and other healthcare and economic realities in the US.
"The American Dental Association, the federal Centers for Disease Control and state government have endorsed the practice of fluoridating public water at 1 part per million for nearly 50 years to combat tooth decay in a safe, cost-effective manner.
Massachusetts officials supplied The Standard-Times with one study that shows the effectiveness of fluoridation on children's teeth. There are hundreds of studies from across the country that compare children who drink water without fluoride to those who drink fluoridated water.
The 1981 study by the Harvard University School of Dental Medicine and state Department of Dental Care Administration looked at 231 children ages 7 to 14 who grew up with fluoridated water in 1981 in Holyoke and a similar group of children who were screened in the same Holyoke schools in 1968 before the community added fluoride to its water.
The researchers found that among young boys and girls there was a 72 percent reduction in tooth decay, as measured through cavities, missing teeth and other signs of decay.
Comparisons of nonfluoridated and fluoridated communities in the United States, Australia, Britain, Canada, Ireland and New Zealand have consistently demonstrated the effectiveness of water fluoridation in reducing decay, according to the CDC. The reduction in dental decay ranged from 15 percent to 40 percent in these studies.
With this kind of results, it is understandable that the directors of New Bedford's anti-poverty agency, PACE, made a request several years ago to the New Bedford Board of Health to add fluoride to city water to help children and adults, and particularly to reach poor children who do not have good dental care at home through regular brushing or at a dentist's office through regular visits. "
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/05-06/05-04-06/01opinion.htm
As far as our bodies 'not using' the minerals in water, ..please. Regular drinking water doesn't carry the volumes of Calcium or Magnesium that we NEED every day, compared to what 'should' be in our food, but if it's there in solution in the small intestine, it will get picked over, and Ca and Mg aren't the only minerals we need.
In the case of emergency water rations, who could argue with whatever Wa. has pulled together? Sure.. But the argument is about the ridiculous volumes of throwaway bottles that clog our solid waste streams and throw away precious feed-stocks in one-use containers. (Even recycled, that plastic has maybe two degraded uses to go, before its tossed. Glass, or a reusable water-bottle could go on for years. I hope the schools have at least stocked up in large, reusable water-cooler tanks, and not just cases of 'handi-paks'.. we've convinced ourselves that these conveniences are absolutely life/death necessities.
Providing people with jobs is not, and never has been, a valid arguement to continue engaging in some wasteful or detrimental practice.
Toothpaste actually is not as good as we might want it to be—many places that don't have fluoridated water give kids fluoride pills.
That makes zero sense, friend. Water use in New York City per capita is way below what it is elsewhere. As Peakguy said, we have no pools to fill and no lawns to water. We should be encouraging people to live in dense urban environments like New York City to get people to conserve water.
And "too much power pumping it"? Where are your facts? New York City's water flows down from the Catskills by gravity:
And it doesn't even use energy for water filtration. More from NYC.gov: "Today, New York City has the largest unfiltered surface water supply in the world."There are a lot of people here and together, we use a lot of water. But we use a lot less of it than if we were spread out over miles and miles of suburbia or exurbia. TJ, don't fall into the trap of thinking that just becuse New York City is big and filled with cars and asphalt, it is bad for the environment. In fact, quite the opposite. New York City residents use less energy and water than other Americans do.
If people are really worried, they'd be much better off buying a Brita filter than bottled water. Even with the filter changes, it still comes out to be a lot cheaper and environmentally friendly than bottled water.
And I'm sure it was sold as "Mountain Spring Water"...
When you add everything up, NYC is just plain efficient because it is dense and the rest of the state is just too spread out. They need to change their living arrangements - recenter their towns and villages, moving their homes closer to work, shopping areas, etc.
NYC subsidizes the rest of the state big time. Like by over $10 billion / year. Just look at the Mayor's budget presentation for 2007. Or Ask the Center for Government Research.
When you add everything up, NYC is just plain efficient because it is dense and the rest of the state is just too spread out. They need to change their living arrangements - recenter their towns and villages, moving their homes closer to work, shopping areas, etc.
Don't forget that there are 8 million people in NYC. That's an awful lot of state residents, and less than 25% of them own cars. Unless we want more cars on the road in a city that already caters to this 25%, then we should be happy that the state government puts so much into subsidized transit.
Probably half of the $540 million for the subways and $93 million for the LIRR comes from City residents because they pay the bulk of State taxes. They also pay the fares to ride every time they board a train. Upstate highways, on the other hand, are absolutely free for motorists, but they are paid for in large part by City residents who will never use them. Upstate pays for a portion of the investments in rail infrastructure, but city folk fork over a big automobile subsidy in the form of upstate roadways that encourage more driving, more gasoline demand and therefore higher gas prices.
I think everyone has to figure this out, why put the burden only on already-energy-frugal NYC residents? I'd say that the answer is re-urbanize the built environment, upstate and downstate. Cities and compact towns are the way people will live in an energy-scarce world, as we did before the cheap oil age.There is a reason Jim Kunstler lives upstate. It offers a great pre-existing environment for relocalization. Buffalo. Albany. Syracuse. Utica. Rochester. Oneida. Schenectady. Binghamton. Upstate New York is going to be better off than a lot of other places when demand destruction begins. Not because a fiscal subsidy from New York City will be there to provide people with alternatives. It will be better off because of its own inherent strengths.